FWIW, I'll chime in. I've thought about the things that have happened the last couple days --- there are a few oddities that pique the curiosity:
(1) The CNN and NBC stories break within 24 hours of the ruling in the Penn State vs. Insurance Company case. Two big stories, BOTH within 24 hours? After the story has been very quiet (in terms of new allegations) for a few years? That's a bit odd.
(2) Barron, after remaining pretty silent on all things Paterno during his 2 years as PSU President --- speaks out himself? That's a bit odd too. Why now?
Stepping back, there is A LOT of $$$ at stakes in regards to the Penn State vs. Insurance Company lawsuit. Something like $60,000,000!!! I think it's fairly clear that Penn State's strategy as regards people who made claims that they were victimized by Sandusky was: "unless it is easy to DIS-prove that this person was a victim, pay the $$$ because a protracted fight serves nobody. Paying the $$$ helps get the case off the books, and besides, we'll turn around and make our insurance company pay things."
That's not necessarily a moral strategy (there is an element of "fuck the insurance company."). But it is pragmatic, and arguably the best strategy.
Of course, the insurance company's reaction is "Fuck us?!?!? Yeah, well, fuck you, we're not paying." And (like Penn State on the other side), they're willing to play dirty in this fight. Lots of $$$ at stake! Penn State actually won the portion of the lawsuit as regards the claims on allegations from the 1970s and 1980s.
So, my current working theory on why things have flared up over the past few days:
(1) The insurance company knew they would likely lose this portion of the lawsuit. Read the ruling, it's actually a very straightforward reading of the insurance policies as they were worded from the 1970s/1980s. Paterno wasn't a trustee or director or shareholder: if and only if those sort of folk knew about what Sandusky was doing would the policy go void.
(2) The insurance company had pre-leaked the stories to the press in advance of the ruling. Remember, the insurance company would have access to the depositions. They know what's in there. Their goal is to embarrass PSU in the press, and a shot at muddying the waters (in the inevitable appeal) as regards the actual ruling.
(3) The stories get published once the insurance company actually loses.
(4) Now Penn State is on the defense again, and in a position they have to strongly refute the stories. LOTS of $$$ at stake here.
Barron's letter is mostly about $$$. It's not really about Paterno. That said, Barron is a politician and a portion of his "constituency" are JoeBots: he threw them a bit of a bone by mentioning Joe.
Who knows. But following the $ is usually a good idea, and there's a TON of $ at stake as regards that lawsuit.
As for whether the CNN/NBC stories are true? IMO: CNN considerably more likely vs. the NBC story. But honestly, I'm kind of indifferent on their validity. Their validity/invalidity simply doesn't matter too much bigger picture.
